Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Notices 85723 

of, an RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP 

under 49 CFR 236.1021. 

Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA’s 

regulations provide that FRA will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

and invite public comment in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an 

RFA includes a request for approval of 

a material modification of a signal or 

train control system. Accordingly, this 

notice informs the public that, 

November 28, 2023, NMRX submitted 

an RFA to its Interoperable Electronic 

Train Management System (I–ETMS), 

which seeks FRA’s approval to 

temporarily disable I–ETMS to facilitate 

the removal and upgrade of outdated 

relay logic equipment. That RFA is 

available in Docket No. FRA–2010– 

0045. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on NMRX’s RFA by 

submitting written comments or data. 

During FRA’s review of this railroad’s 

RFA, FRA will consider any comments 

or data submitted within the timeline 

specified in this notice and to the extent 

practicable, without delaying 

implementation of valuable or necessary 

modifications to a PTC system. See 49 

CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 

236.1011(e). Under 49 CFR 236.1021, 

FRA maintains the authority to approve, 

approve with conditions, or deny a 

railroad’s RFA at FRA’s sole discretion. 

Privacy Act Notice 

In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, 

FRA solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its decisions. DOT posts 

these comments, without edit, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides, to https://

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

See https://www.regulations.gov/ 

privacy-notice for the privacy notice of 

regulations.gov. To facilitate comment 

tracking, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. If you 

wish to provide comments containing 

proprietary or confidential information, 

please contact FRA for alternate 

submission instructions. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams, 

Director, Office of Railroad Systems and 

Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27002 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2022–0100; Notice 1] 

Ford Motor Company, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) 

has determined that certain model year 

(MY) 2018–2020 Ford F–150 motor 

vehicles do not fully comply with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment. 

Ford filed a noncompliance report dated 

September 8, 2022, and subsequently 

petitioned NHTSA (the ‘‘Agency’’) on 

September 30, 2022, for a decision that 

the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety. This document 

announces receipt of Ford’s petition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

January 8, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views, 

and arguments on this petition. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice number cited in the title of this 

notice and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Mail: Send comments by mail 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments 

by hand to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket 

Section is open on weekdays from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. except for Federal 

Holidays. 

• Electronically: Submit comments 

electronically by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) website at https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Comments may also be faxed to 

(202) 493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that comments you have 

submitted by mail were received, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard with the comments. Note that 

all comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

All comments and supporting 

materials received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

above will be filed in the docket and 

will be considered. All comments and 

supporting materials received after the 

closing date will also be filed and will 

be considered to the fullest extent 

possible. 

When the petition is granted or 

denied, notice of the decision will also 

be published in the Federal Register 

pursuant to the authority indicated at 

the end of this notice. 

All comments, background 

documentation, and supporting 

materials submitted to the docket may 

be viewed by anyone at the address and 

times given above. The documents may 

also be viewed on the internet at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

online instructions for accessing the 

dockets. The docket ID number for this 

petition is shown in the heading of this 

notice. 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement is available for review in a 

Federal Register notice published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leroy Angeles, General Engineer, 

NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, (202) 366–5304. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview: Ford determined that 

certain MY 2018–2020 Ford F–150 

motor vehicles do not fully comply with 

paragraph S14.2.1.6 of FMVSS No. 108, 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, And 

Associated Equipment (49 CFR 

571.108). 

Ford filed a noncompliance report 

dated September 8, 2022, pursuant to 49 

CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. Ford petitioned NHTSA on 

September 30, 2022, for an exemption 

from the notification and remedy 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 

on the basis that this noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 

556, Exemption for Inconsequential 

Defect or Noncompliance. 

This notice of receipt of Ford’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
85724 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Notices 

1 Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences 

of Automotive Signal Lamps, was published by 

Huey, Deker, and Lyons in September 1994 (DOT 

HS 808 209, September 1994). 

2 (UMTRI–97–4, February 1997). 

any agency decision or another exercise 

of judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 

1,439,524 MY 2018–2020 Ford F–150 

motor vehicles, manufactured between 

January 10, 2017, and October 22, 2020, 

were reported by the manufacturer. 

III. Noncompliance: Ford explains 

that the subject vehicles are equipped 

with amber side marker lamps that do 

not comply with the photometry 

reqiurements of S14.2.1.6 of FMVSS No. 

108. Specifically, they failed to meet the 

minimum photometric requirement of 

0.62 candela at test point 10.0D and 

32.0L. Specifically, the amber side 

marker lamps had a luminous intensity 

that was lower than the 0.62 candela 

minimum requirement. 

IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph 

S7.4.13.1, S7.4.13.2, and Table X of 

FMVSS No. 108 includes the 

requirements relevant to this petition. 

Each side marker lamp must be 

designed to conform to the photometry 

requirements of Table X, when tested 

according to the procedure of S14.2.1 

for the lamp color as specified by this 

section; and for each motor vehicle less 

than 30 feet in overall length, the 

minimum photometric intensity 

requirements for a side marker lamp 

may be met for all inboard test points 

at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle 

and on a vertical plane that is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of 

the vehicle and located midway 

between the front and rear side marker 

lamps. 

V. Background Information: On June 

17, 2022, Ford received a letter from 

NHTSA’s Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance stating that Calcoast-ITL, a 

test lab contracted by NHTSA to 

conduct FMVSS No. 108 testing on 

service lamps, found that 3 of 4 front 

left hand (LH) MY 2018 Ford F–150 

head lamps did not meet the FMVSS 

No. 108 minimum photometry 

requirement for amber side markers at 

one test point out of nine. Calcoast-ITL 

found that all four of the front right 

hand (RH) MY 2018 Ford F–150 head 

lamps met the regulatory requirements 

in FMVSS No. 108. Ford reports that 

after reviewing the supplier’s lamp 

assembly certification data and 

production audit testing records, it was 

determined that the candela values 

consistently exceeded the minimum 

requirement. After further review, Ford 

discovered that the supplier produced 

lamps on a semi-automated ‘‘main line’’ 

and a non-automated ‘‘secondary’’ line. 

According to Ford’s review, the semiautomated main line appeared to be 

compliant. However, Ford found that 

the non-automated secondary line was 

‘‘susceptible to process variation.’’ 

Furthermore, lamps from the main line 

were subjected to an end-of-line 

screening process that included 

regulatory compliance verification. This 

screening check was not included in the 

secondary line. Approximately 96 

percent of the lamps were produced on 

the main line. Ford says that after 

October 7, 2020, all service parts were 

produced on the secondary line, as 

production of the main line ceased 

when vehicle production ended. 

Ford says that further testing of the 

service parts produced on the secondary 

line indicated that 72 of 252 LH parts 

and 47 of 219 RH parts had test point 

values below the minimum requirement 

of 0.62 candela when using a rated bulb. 

Ford claims that all nonconforming data 

pertains to the parts that were produced 

on the supplier’s secondary line. Ford 

estimates that approximately 25 percent 

of the lamps from the secondary line fell 

below the 0.62 candela minimum 

requirement, which corresponds to less 

than one percent of the total vehicle 

population, approximately 14,935 

vehicles. 

Ford says that the subject 

noncompliance may be due to process 

variation causing tolerance stack-up 

issues on the lamp supplier’s secondary 

line, resulting in the side marker bulbs 

being produced with an inner bezel 

distortion and/or an out-of-position 

bezel. Ford explains that, given the lack 

of screening procedures on the 

secondary line, these defects were not 

found during manufacturing. 

VI. Summary of Ford’s Petition: The 

following views and arguments 

presented in this section, ‘‘VI. Summary 

of Ford’s Petition,’’ are the views and 

arguments provided by Ford. They have 

not been evaluated by the Agency and 

do not reflect the views of the Agency. 

Ford describes the subject 

noncompliance and contends that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential as it 

relates to motor vehicle safety. 

Ford says that when a side marker 

lamp is tested for compliance with 

FMVSS No. 108 requirements, only the 

side marker lamp in the combination 

headlamp is illuminated and measured. 

However, Ford explains that the side 

marker lamp does not automatically 

illuminate alone during normal vehicle 

operation. The parking lamp and the 

side marker lamp are both illuminated 

with the same amber color when the 

headlamps are activated. Further, the 

parking lamp is positioned such that it 

illuminates the same visual field as the 

side marker lamp. 

To evaluate the effect of the addition 

of the parking lamp on the illumination 

of the side marker lamps, Ford 

measured the illumination of the subject 

lamps with only the side marker lamp 

illuminated and then with both lamps 

illuminated as they would be during 

regular vehicle operation. Ford 

determined that the side marker lamp 

illumination measured at greater values 

at several FMVSS No. 108 test points 

that complied with regulatory 

specifications. Ford says that, according 

to this data, the parking lamp increased 

the candela value at each test point by 

an average of 0.110 to 0.932. 

In this evaluation, Ford considered 

only the lowest measured values for the 

increased parking lamp illumination at 

the various test points. The parking 

lamp’s illumination produced an 

additional 0.125 candela at the test 

point 10D–32L. When the parking lamp 

was added to the side marker lamp, all 

measured values exceeded the 0.62 

candela minimum requirement. 

Ford conducted a statistical analysis 

to assess the potential values in a larger 

vehicle population in order to further 

evaluate the effects of increased 

illumination from the parking lamp. For 

this analysis, Ford used the candela 

values for 282 LH service lamps with 

only the side marker illuminated then 

applied the additional parking lamp 

illumination values previously 

described. Ford found that ‘‘the vast 

majority of vehicles would measure 

above the 0.62 candela regulatory 

standard.’’ The lowest value Ford 

anticipates in a vehicle would be 0.55 

candela (0.44 + 0.110) which represents 

the lowest candela value at test point 

LH 10D–32L, plus the minimum amount 

of additional illumination that could be 

measured with the parking lamp 

illuminated. Ford notes that this value, 

0.55 candela, is lower than the required 

minimum of 0.62 candela by less than 

25 percent. 

Ford argues that there are two reports 

that are relevant to this petition. Ford 

says that these reports indicate that up 

to a 25 percent difference in a lamp’s 

photometric output is imperceptible to 

the human eye. The first report, Driver 

Perception of Just Noticeable 

Differences of Automotive Signal 

Lamps,1 was published in September 

1994. The University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute 

(UMTRI) conducted an additional study 

in February 1997 extending the 1994 

study to low beam automotive 

headlamps.2 Ford says that the studies 

found that the majority of drivers were 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Notices 85725 

3See North America Subaru, Inc., Denial of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764, August 10, 2022. 

4Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for 

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 

85 FR 39678 (July 1, 2020). 

5Subaru of America, Grant of Petition for 

Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 

56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991). 

6Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of 

Petition for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 85 FR 39679 (July 1, 2020). 

7 FCA US, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 57649 

(September 15, 2022). 

8Ford did not provide the Federal Register 

citation but it appears that this refers to North 

America Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 

48764 (August 10, 2022). 

unable to differentiate the light output 

between different sources when the 

difference in illumination was less than 

25 percent. Ford contends that the 1994 

study indicated that the findings were 

appropriate for consideration of 

inconsequentiality petitions involving a 

noncompliance with the photometry 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108. 

Ford notes that it is not aware of any 

reports related to the subject 

noncompliance. Ford recognizes that a 

lack of reports is not dispositive but 

believes that it is illustrative of the field 

performance.3

Ford says that NHTSA has granted 

prior petitions concerning similar 

noncompliances. Ford believes that 

NHTSA’s rationale for those decisions 

support the granting of its current 

petition. 

Ford says that NHTSA granted a 

petition submitted by Nissan North 

America, Inc. (Nissan)4 that involved 

vehicles with side marker lamps in 

combination head lamps that did not 

meet the photometric intensity 

requirements as required by paragraph 

S7.4.13.1 of FMVSS No. 108. Ford 

explains that Nissan’s petition 

presented two main arguments: (1) 

NHTSA should consider the parking 

lamp photometry along with the side 

marker lamp because both lamps are 

always illuminated, and (2) the 

condition that caused the 

noncompliance could not be seen by the 

human eye. In this case, Ford says that 

NHTSA agreed with Nissan’s second 

argument but rejected the first. Ford 

says that NHTSA disagreed with 

Nissan’s first argument because Nissan’s 

parking lamp illumination was white 

and the side marker lamp was amber 

which would cause a passing motorist 

to have difficulty determining what part 

of the vehicle is approaching. Ford 

contends that this reasoning does not 

apply to the subject noncompliance 

because both Ford’s parking lamp and 

side marker lamp are amber. Thus, 

according to Ford, a passing motorist 

would not encounter the same difficulty 

in determining which part of the vehicle 

is approaching. 

Ford says it also reviewed petitions 

involving a noncompliance with the 

side reflex reflector and not the side 

marker lamp. While the petitions do not 

concern the side marker lamp, Ford 

believes that NHTSA’s rationale in those 

decisions can be informative. Ford 

explains that the side reflex reflectors 

reflect other light and do not illuminate. 

Ford says that NHTSA has consistently 

found that a 25 percent change in 

luminosity is imperceptible to the 

human eye. Specifically, Ford refers to 

NHTSA’s decision on a petition 

submitted by Subaru of America 

(Subaru) 5 that involved failures of 

luminous intensity on the side reflex 

reflector and a Hella petition. In that 

case, Ford explains that the 

noncompliant lamps were all less than 

20 percent of the minimum values. 

NHTSA granted Subaru’s petition and 

applied the reasoning that the human 

eye cannot detect a 25 percent change 

in luminosity. 

Ford also cites NHTSA’s decision on 

a petition from Toyota Motor North 

America (Toyota) 6 in which vehicles 

were equipped with rear reflex 

reflectors that did not meet the 

minimum requirements specified in 

FMVSS No. 108. Ford says Toyota 

believed that noncompliance was 

inconsequential because a change of 

luminous intensity of 18 percent is 

imperceptible to the human eye. 

NHTSA concurred, relying on its own 

assessment and past precedent stated in 

the 1991 Hella and Subaru grants of 

inconsequentiality. 

Next, Ford says that NHTSA’s 

rationale in denying a petition 

submitted by FCA US LLC (FCA) 7

supports its belief that the subject 

noncompliance should be deemed 

inconsequential. Ford explains that 

FCA’s petition concerned side reflex 

reflectors that did not meet the 

minimum photometry requirements at 

the observation angle of 0.2 degrees. In 

that petition, FCA’s reflex reflectors 

were 68.6 percent below the required 

value. Ford says that the subject side 

marker lamps ‘‘maintained much closer 

margins to the standard.’’ 

Finally, Ford refers to a Subaru 

petition that NHTSA denied in 2022 

that involved side reflex reflectors that 

did not comply with FMVSS No. 108 

photometry requirements.8 In that case, 

Ford says NHTSA stated that its 

thinking on the deviation threshold of 

25 percent evolved, and that it no longer 

believes that threshold applies to side 

reflex reflectors because the photometry 

criteria for side reflex reflectors are 

measured in mcd/lux, whereas other 

lamps are measured in candela. Ford 

contends that this new thinking should 

not apply to the subject noncompliance 

because side marker lamps produce 

their own illumination and are therefore 

measured in candela. 

Ford concludes by stating its belief 

that the subject noncompliance is 

inconsequential as it relates to motor 

vehicle safety and its petition to be 

exempted from providing notification of 

the noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the 

noncompliance, as required by 49 

U.S.C. 30120, should be granted. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject vehicles that Ford no longer 

controlled at the time it determined that 

the noncompliance existed. However, 

any decision on this petition does not 

relieve vehicles distributors and dealers 

of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for 

sale, or introduction or delivery for 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

the noncompliant vehicles under their 

control after Ford notified them that the 

subject noncompliance existed. 

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 

501.8) 

Otto G. Matheke, III, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26960 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2023–0065] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Notice and Request for 

Comment; Crash Injury Research and 

Engineering Network Data Collection 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments on a request for approval of 

a new information collection. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES